Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Lock compatibility matrix

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: "Peter Eisentraut" <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org, "Pavan Deolasee" <pavan(dot)deolasee(at)gmail(dot)com>
Subject: Re: Lock compatibility matrix
Date: 2007-01-30 20:31:37
Message-ID: 9240.1170189097@sss.pgh.pa.us (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-patches
"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 11:09 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Why would we want to have two redundant copies of the same information?

> The lock information is not available anywhere in the form of a matrix.

Sure, but at this point we have proposals for adding two different matrix
representations, both redundant with the textual description.  I don't
mind adding one of the two, but both seems overkill.

			regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

pgsql-patches by date

Next:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2007-01-30 20:33:26
Subject: Re: Lock compatibility matrix
Previous:From: Simon RiggsDate: 2007-01-30 20:17:15
Subject: Re: Lock compatibility matrix

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group